D&D 5E Players Self-Assigning Rolls

Ovinomancer said:

Telling me die rolls means I, as DM, have to determine the details of your approach. Having the player state and approach and goal and then the DM asking for a roll if the outcome is uncertain and fraught means there's never any 'but my character wouldn't have touched the alter when he investigated it' going on.

Click to expand...

Just to add to this thought, a player's attempt to establish an approach post die roll will often be colored by the result. High rolls encourage bolder action while lower rolls naturally invite more caution.

iserith said:

Are you saying that dice rolling is "interruptive behavior?"



Again, and hopefully for the last time, I did not assert any causation. I pointed out something I see commonly in groups where players also make unprompted rolls and how players and DMs stepping out of their intended roles can be a detriment to the play experience. The lack of a statement of a goal and approach is what creates the vacuum in my view where the DM steps in to fill the player's role, not the unprompted rolling by players. But frequently, I'll see both.

Click to expand...

Am i saying dice rolling is interruptive behavior... No but it can be just like description can be, just like narrative can be.

"Intertuptive behavior" is defined by when it is done in context of the play not what is being done.

But again correlation is a bad thing to use for many cases.

In most narrative heavy games i have seen (vs narrative balanced or mechanics heavy) there has been a correlation with some players monopolizing most of the screen time because the "give good story" or keep stepping up to be the guy talking etc... Again, correlation. Can happen elsewhere.

There may be some slight causation there if the game being played rewards mechanically "giving good story" and "more screen time" by things like "fun points or cool point" or even "cool talk auto succeed" that can be earned when you are active in a scene.

Contrast to more mechanics heavy games where the mechanics tend to have rules which control timeflow and everybody gets a turn in many cases. In some of those, maybe a conversation challenge is not so much as a few sentences and a roll.

I dont see eother of those as tied to the game style per se, so i dont hold either against the concept of shared rolls vs monopoly rolls games.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

5ekyu said:

Am i saying dice rolling is interruptive behavior... No but it can be just like description can be, just like narrative can be.

"Intertuptive behavior" is defined by when it is done in context of the play not what is being done.

But again correlation is a bad thing to use for many cases.

In most narrative heavy games i have seen (vs narrative balanced or mechanics heavy) there has been a correlation with some players monopolizing most of the screen time because the "give good story" or keep stepping up to be the guy talking etc... Again, correlation. Can happen elsewhere.

There may be some slight causation there if the game being played rewards mechanically "giving good story" and "more screen time" by things like "fun points or cool point" or even "cool talk auto succeed" that can be earned when you are active in a scene.

Contrast to more mechanics heavy games where the mechanics tend to have rules which control timeflow and everybody gets a turn in many cases. In some of those, maybe a conversation challenge is not so much as a few sentences and a roll.

I dont see eother of those as tied to the game style per se, so i dont hold either against the concept of shared rolls vs monopoly rolls games.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

I'm apparently not the only one who notices that games where players asking to make or making unprompted rolls often have players failing to state a clear goal and approach. Regardless of whether there is causation, it appears to be a fairly common thing in our hobby, even in some popular vodcasts. Again, I'm only pointing that out as an observation, not a conclusion that players making unprompted rolls necessarily results in a curtailment of stating a goal and approach or vice versa.

iserith said:

I'm apparently not the only one who notices that games where players asking to make or making unprompted rolls often have players failing to state a clear goal and approach. Regardless of whether there is causation, it appears to be a fairly common thing in our hobby, even in some popular vodcasts. Again, I'm only pointing that out as an observation, not a conclusion that players making unprompted rolls necessarily results in a curtailment of stating a goal and approach or vice versa.

Click to expand...

Right, player declared rolls doesn't prevent clearly stated approach and goal. But, it doesn't incentivize them, either, and has a slight incentive to be as vague as possible in approach. Unless the DM is insisting upon clearly stated approach and goals with the player declared goal, of course.

Ovinomancer said:

Right, player declared rolls doesn't prevent clearly stated approach and goal. But, it doesn't incentivize them, either, and has a slight incentive to be as vague as possible in approach. Unless the DM is insisting upon clearly stated approach and goals with the player declared goal, of course.

Click to expand...

Would that slight incentive be to avoid situations where the DM rules automatic failure for a given approach to a goal? Or something else?

iserith said:

Would that slight incentive be to avoid situations where the DM rules automatic failure for a given approach to a goal? Or something else?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. If I gain nothing by adding specifics to my approach under the assumption that a high roll will require the DM to narrate a success, then adding information that might unintentionally preclude such a success is counter-indicated. I'm better off pushing the work of defining the approach onto the DM.

Of course, the DM may chose an unwise approach for me, but then I get to complain that the DM isn't being fair -- when I intentionally offloaded all such decisions about my approach to the DM by just declaring a skill and a check result.

This is one of the things that led me to start disallowing player declared rolls -- I didn't want that responsibility and the resultant blame on my shoulders. To compensate, I don't run gotchas that aren't extensively telegraphed. So far, every time a player has been hit with a gotcha, everyone at the table immediately recognizes that they had plenty of information about that event leading up to the result.

Example: the party is investigating a bog that has a series of small islands linked by rotting boards. They've examined every board so far and determined they're in bad shape, but safe enough for 1 person to walk on at a time, no checks needed (the character checking is proficient in carpenter's tools, so I ruled it automatic he could judge the strength of the timber). Until a fight breaks out and a character runs across a board that hasn't been checked. I ask for a wisdom check before his steps out and he fails (DC was set at 10 due to the rushed conditions and not closely examining the board) and so doesn't realize this board is rotten through until it dumps him into the water. No one complained because rotting boards were established as a setting piece already. In fact, it was an amusing moment that increased tension a bit as now that character couldn't get to the party member he was on the way to assist that round.

Ovinomancer said:

Pretty much. If I gain nothing by adding specifics to my approach under the assumption that a high roll will require the DM to narrate a success, then adding information that might unintentionally preclude such a success is counter-indicated. I'm better off pushing the work of defining the approach onto the DM.

Of course, the DM may chose an unwise approach for me, but then I get to complain that the DM isn't being fair -- when I intentionally offloaded all such decisions about my approach to the DM by just declaring a skill and a check result.

This is one of the things that led me to start disallowing player declared rolls -- I didn't want that responsibility and the resultant blame on my shoulders. To compensate, I don't run gotchas that aren't extensively telegraphed. So far, every time a player has been hit with a gotcha, everyone at the table immediately recognizes that they had plenty of information about that event leading up to the result.

Example: the party is investigating a bog that has a series of small islands linked by rotting boards. They've examined every board so far and determined they're in bad shape, but safe enough for 1 person to walk on at a time, no checks needed (the character checking is proficient in carpenter's tools, so I ruled it automatic he could judge the strength of the timber). Until a fight breaks out and a character runs across a board that hasn't been checked. I ask for a wisdom check before his steps out and he fails (DC was set at 10 due to the rushed conditions and not closely examining the board) and so doesn't realize this board is rotten through until it dumps him into the water. No one complained because rotting boards were established as a setting piece already. In fact, it was an amusing moment that increased tension a bit as now that character couldn't get to the party member he was on the way to assist that round.

Click to expand...

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

iserith said:

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

Click to expand...

I think I've played with that DM. Briefly.

iserith said:

Good example and conclusions. I was thinking I also see it a lot when the expected response from the DM is typically "No" to just about anything the players suggest UNLESS there is some kind of mechanical, rules-based justification. So pushing mechanics on the player side is a way to get the DM to go along. And once the players realize that, then they don't need to spend time thinking too much about approach to a goal and just push mechanics.

Click to expand...

Ovinomancer said:

I think I've played with that DM. Briefly.

Click to expand...

Me too. That was the one from my example way back on page 2.
“I examine the paths of the pipes to see if I can find a pattern that would indicate which valves will direct the water flow away from the door.”
“You can’t find any pattern.”
“*sigh* I make an Investigation check. 16.”
“You figure out that if you turn two valves on the left side and one on the right, it should redirect the flow.”

^^^
Not the exact wording, but a real example of something that happened in that game.

Ovinomancer said:

My experience is exactly opposite: allowing player declared rolls meant that there was a reward mechanism for interrupting with a roll to gain more knowledge or effect a solution to a problem more quickly. Not allowing them has meant, for me, fewer interruption when I'm setting the scene or describing a new development -- my players have learned that more information is being provided if they listen, and even more on a clearly stated approach.

Further, and this is a point, if my players have to declare an approach and goal instead of just a die roll, there's less interpretation on my part as DM. For example, let's say there's an altar to an evil god that will explode with necrotic energy if touched by a non-worshiper. There's a big point of different to a player declaring they're closely inspecting the alter, but not touching it, to see if there's anything special about it vs a "21 Investigate!" The former nets information without danger, the latter is up to me as DM if I think a "21 Investigate!" means you touched the altar or not. And, if there's a secret compartment that can be found via physical interaction but not via looking, the "21 Investigate!" player might be upset if I decide they don't touch the altar but also don't find the secret compartment, provided, of course, it's found through other actions later.

Telling me die rolls means I, as DM, have to determine the details of your approach. Having the player state and approach and goal and then the DM asking for a roll if the outcome is uncertain and fraught means there's never any 'but my character wouldn't have touched the alter when he investigated it' going on.

ETA: and @iserth said this earlier and more succinctly, and I missed it.

Click to expand...

GM is describing alter and...
1 - player says "i want to examine the altar"
2 - Player says "i want to examine the altar and i rolled int lore 21"
3 - Player says "i examine the alter and i rolled int religion 21"
4 Player says "i want to examine the alter and i rolled wis perception 21"

Now, i know it might come as a shock to may here but, all four of those are disruptive, not just the ones where the dice hit the table.

Really, they are.

Secondly, I know it might come as a shock but, all four of them have insufficient information. As a Gm i would ask a leading question for all before giving a response. (Maybe some will say in cases where dice are not touched they players never ever provideinsufficient info on their first description, but thats not my experience.)

Thirdly, I know it might come as a surprise to some but the cases with the dice rolled actually DID provide more information - about goal and about technique because by identifying the skill and proficiency used the gM knows what that skill and ability can provide as well as the ability being used.

Fort example, if one were to proceed from there to resolution, I would make per check generally descriptive, showing things like how much its looks to have been tended how old it looks etc from where they are. if it was the lore i would work off the notion of what general knowledge would saay about this area, how long ago temples were built etc. if it were religion, i would describe the symbols, trappings and what gods or kinds of gods or spirits the pchartacter could recognize.

Again, all from where they are there.

However, my general response to that would be to, nod in there direction and continue my description and once i got to "player action" stage deal with their inquiry. Then after the session if this showed as a regular thing, i would remind them individually that its best not to interrupt any other players if its not an emergency. thats just rude behavior.